A British academic has done an excellent job of putting together an argument that Christianity has been fabricated much like Greek or Roman religion was. He even has free audio clips and debates Chrisian apologists and does a great job! Below is his quote on the apostles:

“There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs’ deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he’s the bad guy.”

A British academic has done an excellent job of putting together an argument that Christianity has been fabricated much like Greek or Roman religion was. He even has free audio clips and debates Chrisian apologists and does a great job! Below is his quote on the apostles:

“There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs’ deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he’s the bad guy.”

A British academic has done an excellent job of putting together an argument that Christianity has been fabricated much like Greek or Roman religion was. He even has free audio clips and debates Chrisian apologists and does a great job! Below is his quote on the apostles:

“There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs’ deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he’s the bad guy.”

A British academic has done an excellent job of putting together an argument that Christianity has been fabricated much like Greek or Roman religion was. He even has free audio clips and debates Chrisian apologists and does a great job! Below is his quote on the apostles:

“There is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the twelve Apostles and absolutely NO evidence for the colourful variety of martyrs’ deaths they supposedly experienced. The Bible itself actually mentions the death of only two apostles, a James who was put to death by Herod Agrippa (see James for a discussion of this tricky character) and the nasty Judas Iscariot (see below), who gets several deaths because he’s the bad guy.”

Ok.
We all agree.
The entire Bible is myth.
All religion is bogus.
The next step is trying to understand why so many smart people buy in to the story.

Actually fewer and fewer smart people buy into it. Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, and even Einstein did not believe in the Christian god. Modern day neither did Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Warren Buffett!

He never said that all smart people bought into it. Like he said, any freethinker knows that religion is bogus; you can hear it screaming at you as soon as you take your earmuffs off. And believe me, this is not the place to go around telling everyone how bogus religion is. We wouldn’t be on Sam Harris’ official website forum if we hadn’t figured that out already.

The Christianity myth has been unraveling for quite some time. Scholars have noticed for generations that Christianity was borrowed from other previous religions. What has been difficult is unearthing the direct evidence of the early days of the religion because of the zealous book-burning that took place as the religion’s inventors tried their level best to cover their tracks.

The reason there is such a keen interest in this matter is that it’s the ultimate detective story. The Judeo/Christian tradition goes to the heart or our history and culture, and the process of dismantling it and prying its grimy fingers off Western society’s throat involves a two-pronged approach, of scepticism on the one hand, and the hunting for evidence on the other.

The final nail in the coffin of the death-cult of Christianity will be when the whole picture of its early days is laid bare for all to see.

So, you guys need something to tear down in order to have a conversation. If there is nothing to attack, you have nothing to say. Well, let me give you something to seed your thoughts.

The NT documents themselves are evidence of the 12 Apostles, what more do you need? LOL. You don’t realise that the letters of Paul are not of questionable authenticity, and he mentions the Apostles. The book of Acts, written by Paul’s travelling companion, Luke, details the activity of the Apostles after Jesus left them.

You are in denial, fellows, and are no less into self-deception than the Holocaust deniers.

So, you guys need something to tear down in order to have a conversation. If there is nothing to attack, you have nothing to say. Well, let me give you something to seed your thoughts.

The NT documents themselves are evidence of the 12 Apostles, what more do you need? LOL. You don’t realise that the letters of Paul are not of questionable authenticity, and he mentions the Apostles. The book of Acts, written by Paul’s travelling companion, Luke, details the activity of the Apostles after Jesus left them.

You are in denial, fellows, and are no less into self-deception than the Holocaust deniers.

Cheers,
enegue

The New Testament documents are no such thing. The apostles never existed, and were, in fact, borrowed directly from the previous Egyptian religion.

Jesus is likewise borrowed from the Egyptian religion, and was Ra, whose coming was foretold by Mises (notice the close similarity to “Moses”? That’s no coincidence).

Luke likewise is a fictitious character.

By the way, “denial” is what Christianity is all about. Denial that there is no god, that there is no life after death, that the religion is a made up work of fiction.

What Christianity does is tries to make people dependent, by “surrendering”. However, any thinking person can see through this twisted sickness. Besides, death cults are thankfully becoming a thing of the past. It’s not as easy to suck people in in this day and age.

Bringing “holocaust denial” into the conversation is pretty darned twisted, but this is just the kind of thing that Christian nutters like to do. It’s a thing called “false equivalence”. You’re trying to equate something that really did happen with your book of fairy stories, which is a pretty sick thing to do.

But, as any thinking person knows, religion/faith is the most evil force on the face of the planet.

The New Testament documents are no such thing. The apostles never existed, and were, in fact, borrowed directly from the previous Egyptian religion.

If there exists a document that records eye-witness testimony that the Apostles existed, then you have to prove the eye-witness acount is a lie. How do you propose to do that? Just saying they didn’t exist is dumb. You do see how dumb it is, don’t you?

gsmonks - 26 January 2013 05:04 PM

Jesus is likewise borrowed from the Egyptian religion, and was Ra, whose coming was foretold by Mises (notice the close similarity to “Moses”? That’s no coincidence).

LOL. You honestly think that makes a difference. I don’t mind if you think I connecting with Ra, while I think I’m connecting with Jesus.

gsmonks - 26 January 2013 05:04 PM

Luke likewise is a fictitious character.

Well, for you he might be fictitious, but someone put together the various bits of information in the books that are attributed to him. Again, I’m happy for you to call him Fred or Trevor, or whatever you like. I really can’t see the issue with calling him Luke, though.

gsmonks - 26 January 2013 05:04 PM

By the way, “denial” is what Christianity is all about. Denial that there is no god, that there is no life after death, that the religion is a made up work of fiction.

If God doesn’t exist, then why do we have the word “God”. Everything for which we have a word, exists. Life after death exists, because we can talk about it. Religion is real, man. LOL. If it irritates you, then it is real.

I guess you meant to say, the BIble is fiction. I’m okay for you think about it like that. But it does exist. You can hold it in your hands and turn the pages and read the stories inside. If you read all the stories, you will get a better understanding of the characters and the events. You might even pick up some really good pointers on how to live your life more effectively for yourself and those around you.

gsmonks - 26 January 2013 05:04 PM

What Christianity does is tries to make people dependent, by “surrendering”.

No, it tries to open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf, so they can see and hear clearly. You would see that, if you read all of it. You would have me surrender my faith in God and be dependent on your miopic view of the world. How are you different from the way you portray Christians?

gsmonks - 26 January 2013 05:04 PM

However, any thinking person can see through this twisted sickness. Besides, death cults are thankfully becoming a thing of the past. It’s not as easy to suck people in in this day and age.

Uh huh!

gsmonks - 26 January 2013 05:04 PM

Bringing “holocaust denial” into the conversation is pretty darned twisted, but this is just the kind of thing that Christian nutters like to do. It’s a thing called “false equivalence”. You’re trying to equate something that really did happen with your book of fairy stories, which is a pretty sick thing to do.

You and I believe the Holocaust happened, that’s good. But some people don’t, regardless of the evidence. If you present written documents that chronicle the Holocaust to a denier, what would they say? “It’s a lie. It never happened. You have manufactured the evidence.”. How is that different from what you are doing?

We have the world “god” for a number of reasons. First amongst them is the fact that in the early days of the Judeo-Christian tradition, many gods were worshiped. It took a good long while for the idea of the “one god” to evolve. When this happened, a bloody confrontation erupted as the “one god” people, who were well-organised, murderous thugs, killed off the “many gods” people and tried to systematically destroy their artifacts and temples. They didn’t entirely succeed, however, and archaeologists have pieced together both their religion, and the origin of the “one dog” myth. Sorry- I meant “one god”. I was thinking of city bylaws regarding pets, there.

What they found was rather interesting. The one dog . . . er . . . god . . . had a wife, and was borrowed from another religion altogether. A pagan religion, in fact.

Here’s your one dog. I mean, “god”. You can still get on your knees and kiss his stone toes, if you like:

I take it from your abandonment of the debate on the existence of the 12 Aposttles that you are now convinced by the available evidence that they did in fact exist. You didn’t deny the existence of Paul’s letters as eye witness accounts and you are happy to call the fellow who put together the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, Fred or Trevor instead of Luke. I’m glad I could help you clear up the muddle.

There is no need to start another topic within this one, just start a new one, I’ll come along for the ride.

I take it from your abandonment of the debate on the existence of the 12 Aposttles that you are now convinced by the available evidence that they did in fact exist. You didn’t deny the existence of Paul’s letters as eye witness accounts and you are happy to call the fellow who put together the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, Fred or Trevor instead of Luke. I’m glad I could help you clear up the muddle.

There is no need to start another topic within this one, just start a new one, I’ll come along for the ride.

Cheers,
enegue

No, I just don’t have time to look up the relevant info. It’s Sunday, and I’m supposed to be doing things around the house.

The fact of the matter, where the apostles are concerned, is that they are made-up characters that appeared in individual tracts that bear little or no resemblance to the originals. There were a good many of them at one time, but that number was reduced to four at the time the Bible as a single text was created.

The original gospels were tracts written by early Christian teachers who would go from place to place and teach their version of their fledgling faith. The Jesus character changed a great deal over time, from a vision (taken from letters) to symbolism of various kinds to an actual person.

The Jesus character was borrowed from the old Egyptian Book of the Dead, and was Ra in the original incarnation. The Hebrew reinterpretation come to us from the Old Testament Joseph, a character that served as the template.

Glad I could help clear up the confusion.

You’re a good debater, by the way. I like debating with people who don’t go ballistic and present arguments as best they can.

The fact of the matter, where the apostles are concerned, is that they are made-up characters that appeared in individual tracts that bear little or no resemblance to the originals.

How do you know they bare no resemblance to the originals? Do you have copies of the originals? You are making assumptions based on what you prefer to be true, not on the evidence. Have you ever asked yourself why you’d want to do that?

gsmonks - 27 January 2013 02:09 PM

The original gospels were tracts written by early Christian teachers who would go from place to place and teach their version of their fledgling faith. The Jesus character changed a great deal over time, from a vision (taken from letters) to symbolism of various kinds to an actual person.

Again, can you point me to the various stages of this evolution? You know, the orginal Jesus character, then the next one, and so forth. It seems to me, he has always been the Son of God who walked the road to the cross in order to restore Man’s connection to God, and thus free him from bondage to his unruly nature.

gsmonks - 27 January 2013 02:09 PM

The Jesus character was borrowed from the old Egyptian Book of the Dead, and was Ra in the original incarnation. The Hebrew reinterpretation come to us from the Old Testament Joseph, a character that served as the template.

I covered this in a previous post. We have documents that can be traced back to a time 20 years after Jesus lived (the letters of Paul) and at least one Gospel written by a travelling companion of Paul. If this were the only evidence, it would still be weighty. The fact that we have other Gospels and letters that corroborate this detail, makes it extremely difficult to dismiss Jesus’ historicity. You would have to have a strong reason NOT to believe it. What is your strong reason?

gsmonks - 27 January 2013 02:09 PM

You’re a good debater, by the way. I like debating with people who don’t go ballistic and present arguments as best they can.

Thanks. I like to share the things I believe and to listen to what others believe. We are more likely to arrive at the truth together than we are separately.

Enegue,
“If God doesn’t exist, then why do we have the word “God”. Everything for which we have a word, exists. Life after death exists, because we can talk about it. Religion is real, man. LOL. If it irritates you, then it is real.I guess you meant to say, the BIble is fiction. I’m okay for you think about it like that. But it does exist. You can hold it in your hands and turn the pages and read the stories inside.”

That is proof of something? Christians make fun of the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. And yes, you can hold their publications in your hand and turn the pages and read stories inside. Doesn’t mean the contents actually happened. Any of the millions of books out there would be the same. Some of which are purposely written as imaginary stories, and are taken as such. Some like those of the Church of Scientology are meant to be taken seriously, but I have a difficult time taking them seriously. Christians don’t accept the Koran either, so because something is published as truth doesn’t make it so.

God is a concept. That is what words are intended to do, convey ideas. Doesn’t mean that the idea of the word is valid or has any inherent truth or existence. In my commentary about Church of Scientology, they use the word “engram” and ‘thetan’. These words I am sure are defined somewhere by the Church, but do you really think that because these words exist that there is an actual existence and reality of the story behind them?

Yes, it is a copy of ancient documents. It contains, unless you have proof to the contrary, eye witness accounts of people and events from the past. It’s not good enough to just say they are untrue, you actually have to prove it. Otherwise, you are just making a statement that you’d prefer it not to be true, which is a weaker position than theirs because you actually have nothing to support your unbelief.

NewShoe - 28 January 2013 02:54 AM

Christians make fun of the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. And yes, you can hold their publications in your hand and turn the pages and read stories inside. Doesn’t mean the contents actually happened.

People can write about pink unicorns if they want to. I won’t argue with them. If you were interested in a discussion about pink unicorns, though, you would have read as much as you could of what’s been written, so you wouldn’t suffer embarrassment by arguing from ignorance.

NewShoe - 28 January 2013 02:54 AM

Any of the millions of books out there would be the same. Some of which are purposely written as imaginary stories, and are taken as such. Some like those of the Church of Scientology are meant to be taken seriously, but I have a difficult time taking them seriously. Christians don’t accept the Koran either, so because something is published as truth doesn’t make it so.

Again, if you wanted to have a discussion with someone about the Koran, you would have to read it fully, otherwise you could be misrepresenting their ideas. I have no feelings one way or the other about the Koran or any other holy texts.

NewShoe - 28 January 2013 02:54 AM

God is a concept. That is what words are intended to do, convey ideas

Yes, that is true, and various texts portray the concept of God in particular ways. It is important, if you are interested in understanding what is being said, to read the text fully and talk with believers about what they understand that concept to be.

NewShoe - 28 January 2013 02:54 AM

Doesn’t mean that the idea of the word is valid or has any inherent truth or existence. In my commentary about Church of Scientology, they use the word “engram” and ‘thetan’. These words I am sure are defined somewhere by the Church, but do you really think that because these words exist that there is an actual existence and reality of the story behind them?

When you talk to someone who has schizophrenia, I have known a couple, you can’t tell them that what they are hearing or seeing is not real. It’s not real to you, but they have to deal with input in their brains that you don’t. So for them it is as real as any other input. What you do is ask them questions about their experience. For example, “You are hearing voices, but I can’t hear them. Can you tell me what they are saying? What are the voices asking you to do? Do you want to do what they are asking? Why?”

Because I believe in the concept of God portrayed in the Bible, I would make statements about the Ten commandments and Jesus commandments and ask whether what the voices are saying conflicts with what God and Jesus recommended that we do. If I want to communicate with Scientologists, I would employ a similar approach. That’s not to say they are schizophrenic or deluded, but since they are getting input from some source, be it a book or a spiritual influence, that I don’t have access to, I can only learn about what they are telling me if I am willing to ask questions.